1996 INSC 1843
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                       Faridabad Complex Administration

                                                           Vs.

                                                          Yadu

                                   C.A.No.894 of 1986 with 895-900 of 1986

                                    (K. Ramaswamy and G. T. Nanavati JJ.)

                                                      11.12.1996

                                                       ORDER

1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
made on July 17, 1985 and September 11, 1985 dismissing the appeals in limine.

2. The undisputed facts are that one Biharilal and Mahipal attempted to construct shops on the lands
in question. Notices were issued to them for unauthorised construction. Thereafter, admittedly, they
sold the lands to the respondents who filed suits for injunction restraining the appellant from
demolishing the construction made by them on the premises that S. 208 of the Haryana
Municipalities Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Act') requires notice to be given within six months from the
date of unauthorised construction. Since, admittedly the notice was issued to Biharilal on March 18,
1982 and constructions were made sometime in February 1981, it was beyond the period of
limitation. That plea found favour with the Courts below and accordingly the trial Court as well as
the appellate Court decreed the suit and affirmed the same. The High Court dismissed the second
appeals in limine. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. It is not disputed that the appellant is the successor-in-interest by operation of Faridabad Complex
Administration (Regulation and Development) Act, 1972 (Act 4 of 1972) and succeeded to the
property held by Ballabgarh Muncipality. Section 61(1)(f) of the Act provides that subject to any
special reservation made or special conditions imposed by the State Government all properties of
the nature mentioned in that section specifically and situated within the Municipality shall vest in
and be under the control of the Committee and that all other properties which have already vested
shall thereafter vest in the Committee and shall be held and applied by the Committee for the
purpose of Act, i.e., to say "(f) all lands ... or other properties transferred to the Committee by the
State Government or acquired by the Government by purchase or otherwise for public purpose". It
would be seen that all properties as enumerated in sub-section (1) of S. 61 are possessed by the
Ballabgarh Municipality. The appellant being the successor-in-interest, they stood transferred to and
vested in the appellant by virtue of S. 15 of the Act.

4. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was averred that notice was given to Biharilal to
the effect that he was in "unauthorised occupation of the land" and he was constructing
unauthorisedly. He had given a reply thereto stating that he had already transferred the land. D.W.
4, Krishan Lal had stated in his evidence that notice was issued to Biharilal earlier for unauthorised
construction and reply thereto was received from him stating that he had already transferred the
land. Thus, it could be seen that the appellant had asserted the title over the land and the
unauthorised construction carried thereon as asserted and notice on that premise was given to
Biharilal. Admittedly, the respondents have purchased the properties from Biharilal and others.
Thus, they being the successors-in-interest in title from Biharilal and others, the question emerges :
whether they had the right to and title over the land in question and whether notice could be issued
against the appellant? Unfortunately, the Courts below have not adverted these aspects and they
have proceeded on the basis that notice for unauthorised construction was given under S. 208 of the
Act. The trial Court found thus :

"Therefore, it is amply clear notice dated 18-3-1982 served upon Bihari Lal related to land other
than the one involved in the previous litigation. Even if it is held that notice dated 18-3-1982 served
upon Biharilal related to the site in dispute then also the same cannot be binding upon the plaintiff."

5. It is obviously incorrect finding recorded by the trial Court since, admittedly, the respondents had
purchased the lands from Biharilal and it is not their case that Biharilal had title independent of the
Municipality. In these circumstances, the question arises : whether the notice issued by the appellant
is vitiated by any error of law? It is seen that the notice issued under S. 208 is relatable to
unauthorised construction on the premises that the person proceeding with construction is the owner
of the property. In this background, it is not their case that they are the owners and were proceeding
with the constructions in accordance with law after obtaining permission for construction according
to building rules. Therefore, the limitation would arise only when it is asserted that they are the
owners of the property and they were proceeding with the constructions in violation of the
Municipal Rules. In these circumstances, the limitation of S. 208 would not arise. In this case, the
findings of the Courts below is clearly erroneous. There is no error in issuing notice for removal of
the unauthorised construction on the land of the appellant. Therefore, the decree granted by the
Courts below are clearly unsustainable. The High Court has not adverted to land applied its mind to
consider this aspect of the matter. No injunction could be issued against the true owner, i.e.,
appellant.

6. Thus, the appeals are allowed and the suits stand dismissed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.